Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Probability worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions across the probability statements at Foundation tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 0.368 — Combining both samples, the spinner landed on red 34 + 58 = 92 times out of a total of 85 + 165 = 250 spins, so the best estimate of the probability is 92/250 = 0.368. Writing 0.400 is wrong because it uses only the first sample, 34/85 = 0.400, ignoring the extra 165 spins recorded afterwards. Writing 0.352 is wrong because it uses only the second sample, 58/165 = 0.352 (to 3 decimal places), ignoring the first 85 spins. Writing 0.376 is wrong because it averages the two separate estimates, (0.400 + 0.352) ÷ 2 = 0.376, instead of combining the actual numbers of reds and spins across both samples. The best estimate of the probability that the spinner lands on red, using all 250 spins, is 0.368.
- (b) 11/12 — Method: raining and not raining are the only two outcomes, so their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 12/12 gives 12/12 − 1/12, and only the numerators are subtracted, 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11/12, close to the right-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because rain is unlikely. The distractors: 1/12 comes from giving back the probability that it does rain; 1/11 comes from subtracting the 1 from the denominator instead of subtracting the fraction from 1; 11/11 comes from subtracting 1 from the numerator and from the denominator of 12/12 rather than from the numerator alone.
- (b) She is wrong; 12 rolls is too few to judge — Method: compare the result with what is expected, then ask whether the experiment is long enough for a difference to mean anything. Working: if the dice were fair the expected number of sixes in 12 rolls is 12 × 1 ÷ 6 = 2, so 4 sixes is 2 above what was expected. But over only 12 rolls a result like this turns up often by chance: the relative frequency here is 4/12, which is 1/3, and over so few trials a relative frequency can sit well away from 1/6 with no bias at all. Answer: Erin is wrong, because 12 rolls is far too few to decide; she should roll the dice many more times and see whether the relative frequency settles near 1/6. The distractors: saying she is right because 4 beats the expected 2 uses the correct expected value but treats any difference as proof, which so short an experiment cannot give; saying a fair dice gives each score twice in 12 rolls treats an expected value as a guaranteed one; saying that 4 sixes in 12 rolls cancels down to 1 in 6 mis-cancels the fraction, because 4/12 is 1/3, which is twice 1/6, so that comment reaches the right verdict from arithmetic that is wrong.
- (a) 0.8 — Method: the spinner cannot land on red and blue at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added. Working: 0.3 + 0.5, lining the decimal points up. Answer: 0.8, which also tells you that the remaining colour, green, has probability 0.2 because the three must add to 1. The distractors: 0.2 comes from subtracting 0.3 from 0.5 instead of adding the two probabilities; 0.15 comes from multiplying 0.3 by 0.5 instead of adding them; 0.4 comes from finding the mean of 0.3 and 0.5 rather than their total.
- (d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (c) The green bag (7/24) — Method: fractions can only be ordered once they share a denominator, so rewrite all four over the lowest common denominator and compare the numerators. Working: the lowest common denominator of 12, 8, 24 and 3 is 24, and scaling gives 5/12 = 10/24, 3/8 = 9/24, 7/24 stays as it is, and 1/3 = 8/24; the numerators are then 10, 9, 7 and 8. Answer: the smallest numerator is 7, so the green bag, with 7/24, is the least likely and sits furthest to the left on the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: the red bag (5/12) comes from finding the largest of the four probabilities instead of the smallest; the blue bag (3/8) comes from scaling 3/8 by changing only the denominator to 24, which turns it into 3/24 and makes it look the smallest; the yellow bag (1/3) comes from comparing numerators alone and assuming the fraction with the numerator 1 must be the smallest.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (d) 7/15 — Both socks are the same colour either if both are red or if both are blue. The probability both are red is 4/6 × 3/5 = 12/30. The probability both are blue is 2/6 × 1/5 = 2/30. Adding these gives 12/30 + 2/30 = 14/30 = 7/15. Choosing 2/5 comes from only working out the 'both red' path, 12/30, and forgetting the 'both blue' path also counts. Choosing 5/9 comes from treating the draws as if the first sock were replaced, using 4/6 × 4/6 + 2/6 × 2/6 = 20/36 = 5/9, instead of reducing the totals for the second draw. Choosing 7/18 comes from reducing the number of socks removed but not the number left to choose from, using 4/6 × 3/6 + 2/6 × 1/6 = 14/36 = 7/18, instead of 5 remaining socks for the second draw.
- (b) 3 times as likely — Method: to say how many times as likely one event is as another, divide the larger probability by the smaller one; subtracting them gives the gap between the two probabilities, not the multiple. Working: both probabilities are counted in tenths, so 6/10 ÷ 2/10 compares 6 tenths with 2 tenths, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3. Answer: winning at the hoopla stall is 3 times as likely, which is why 6/10 sits three times as far along the 0 to 1 scale as 2/10. The distractors: 4 times as likely comes from subtracting the two counts, 6 − 2, instead of dividing them, which measures the gap rather than the multiple; 6 times as likely comes from reading the larger probability's 6 tenths straight off as the multiple without ever comparing it with the 2 tenths at the other stall; 12 times as likely comes from multiplying the two counts, 6 × 2, instead of dividing one by the other.
- (c) 24 — Silver, bronze and copper cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(copper) = 1 − 1/2 − 1/8 = 3/8. Number of copper counters = 3/8 × 64 = 24. Multiplying the silver probability by 64 gives 32, the number of silver counters, not copper. Multiplying the bronze probability by 64 gives 8, the number of bronze counters. Adding the silver and bronze probabilities (1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8) and multiplying by 64 gives 40, the combined number of silver and bronze counters, not the copper count.
- (d) 12 — There are 120 − 70 = 50 female members. 38 of them play netball, so the rest play football: 50 − 38 = 12. Writing 45 is wrong because that is the number of MALE members who play football, not female. Writing 38 again is wrong because that is the female netball total, not the female football total — the question needs the total minus 38, not 38 itself. Writing 25 is wrong because that comes from the male branch (70 − 45 = 25 male netball players), not the female branch. 12 female members play football.
- (a) 0.2 — Method: for independent events, the probability that both happen is the product of the two probabilities. Working: the first set is green with probability 0.4 and the second with probability 0.5, so the calculation is 0.4 × 0.5. Since 4 × 5 = 20 and the two factors carry one decimal place each, the product carries two. Answer: the probability is 0.2. The distractors: 0.9 comes from adding 0.4 and 0.5 instead of multiplying them; 0.45 comes from averaging the two probabilities; 0.1 comes from subtracting 0.4 from 0.5, treating the question as a difference.
- (a) 4/15 — Method: first find how many pupils travel only by car, then write that as a fraction of the 60 pupils surveyed. Working: pupils who walk or cycle or both = 32 + 24 − 12 = 44. Only by car = 60 − 44 = 16. P(only by car) = 16/60 = 4/15. Answer: 4/15. Watch out: writing down 1/5 takes the overlap of 12 pupils on its own, 12/60, mistaking the group who do both for the group who travel only by car. Writing down 4/5 comes from 60 − 12 = 48, subtracting only the overlap from the total instead of the whole walk-or-cycle count, so cyclists and walkers who are not in the overlap are wrongly swept into the only-car group. And writing down 7/15 comes from 60 − 32 = 28, subtracting the walkers alone and forgetting the cyclists altogether.
- (c) 9/25 — The frequency tree already shows the swim-and-cycle branch directly: 54 out of 150, which simplifies to 9/25. Adding both cycling branches together, 54 + 18 = 72, gives the total number of cyclists, so 72/150 = 12/25, not just those who also swim. Using the non-swimmers' cycling figure, 18, gives 18/150 = 3/25, the probability of cycling WITHOUT swimming. Using the swimmers' total of 90, before splitting by cycling, gives 90/150 = 3/5, the probability of swimming on its own.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.